- Davis faces potential state intervention if housing goals are not met.
- Davis Joint Unified School District warns of declining enrollment and school closures.
DAVIS, CA – This week, the stakes surrounding Davis’ housing debate grew more pronounced. The Davis City Council held a marathon workshop on the Village Farms project that stretched nearly to 2 a.m., and the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) continued to warn of the real and immediate consequences of inaction—declining enrollment, program cuts, and possible school closures.
Together, these developments have reframed the conversation about housing in Davis. For years, much of the debate has centered on neighborhood concerns, traffic, and environmental impact. But now, the issue is not simply about growth—it’s about whether Davis can sustain its schools, retain young families, and maintain control over its own housing policy before the state intervenes.
Once a housing project is officially placed on the ballot, DJUSD can no longer advocate for or against it. But until then, district leaders are free to discuss how local housing policy affects the health of the city’s schools. Their involvement adds urgency and depth to a public discussion that has often lacked a full understanding of the fiscal and demographic realities the district faces.
It is increasingly clear that many in the community do not grasp the intricacies of school finance or the long-term risk to school programs from declining enrollment. Closing a school may save money in the short term, but it doesn’t address the larger problem—families are not moving here due to unaffordable or unavailable housing.
That trend, district officials warn, threatens not only neighborhood schools but also the programs and staff that make DJUSD one of the state’s top-performing districts.
Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton put it plainly: “It’s devastating. It’s a very difficult conversation that none of us want to have.”
In an interview with the Vanguard, Superintendent Matt Best expressed optimism that Davis can rise to the challenge but acknowledged the scale of the problem. “Davis takes challenges head-on,” he said. “We can find the best solutions.”
District data shows Davis could lose up to 1,000 students over the next decade. That drop stems from a combination of high housing costs, a lack of new family housing, and falling birth rates. As UC Davis expands its footprint into Sacramento, more employees are choosing to live closer to that campus rather than in Davis.
The district has outlined several potential outcomes depending on what happens with new housing proposals. Two major projects—Village Farms and Willow Grove—are expected to come before voters in 2026. If both are approved, the district expects to avoid school closures altogether, though some program consolidations would likely occur. If only one project passes, one elementary school would probably close. If neither passes, as many as three schools could be shuttered within a decade.
Those figures put housing decisions directly in the center of Davis’ educational future. DJUSD officials have emphasized that fewer students also means less funding, potentially leading to reduced wages and instability for teachers and staff.
“The board is prioritizing three main things,” Superintendent Best said. “Ensuring every change is in the best interest of students, considering long-term impacts on DJUSD, and being mindful of fiscal responsibility.”
Against that backdrop, the City Council’s Village Farms workshop took on heightened importance this week. The council’s direction was clear: the project must deliver firm, enforceable commitments on affordable housing, housing mix, farmland restoration, and transparency—or it won’t go to the voters.
Mayor Bapu Vaitla set the tone early in the meeting.
“I couldn’t be more opposed to this affordable housing plan,” he said. “I don’t like this. I couldn’t be more opposed to this particular approach as opposed to what was initially offered by Village Farms.”
He called for a reset of the proposal, urging a return to the project’s earlier commitment to directly construct 280 affordable units rather than simply dedicate land and contribute limited funds.
“Put that in the baseline project features full stop,” Vaitla said.
The council agreed that promises were not enough—delivery must be guaranteed. Councilmember Josh Chapman summarized the sentiment: “I think what we’re hearing tonight… is that certainty of construction is at the top priority.”
The council directed staff and developers to return with a performance plan that includes binding timelines for affordable housing construction. Chapman clarified that no vote was being taken that evening, emphasizing the workshop’s purpose as a collaborative session.
“These conversations, this hearing that is here, we’re not voting on that this evening,” he said. “You’re here to hear our feedback and workshop like you did with the planning commission and with the community.”
The council also took aim at the housing mix, saying the project included too many large-lot homes and not enough smaller, more affordable options.
Vice Mayor Donna Neville said, “This development has too many single-family homes on lots of 5,000 square feet or more.”
Vaitla agreed, adding, “We want to push this as far as we can for starter homes, first-time home buyers, families, but keeping an eye on obviously is that viable?”
Councilmember Linda Deos supported reducing lot sizes. “It is very important that we look at when these maps are getting done… we look at more attached units, smaller lots, getting more units in there like that and fewer of the 5,000.”
The council also discussed environmental concerns and public misinformation surrounding the project. Chapman addressed months of online speculation about contamination and flood risk at the Village Farms site.
“There’s this constant drumbeat out there that the site is toxic or somehow poisoned. That’s just not true,” he said. “The EIR addressed that. There are no toxics on this site. We’ve got to stop repeating misinformation because it just confuses and scares the public.”
Vaitla urged staff to publish a clear summary of environmental findings to ensure the public has access to accurate information.
In addition to affordable housing and housing mix, the council called for enforceable commitments on farmland restoration and the 2.5-acre land dedication for a potential future fire station. Deos pushed for clear assurances that restoration will happen as promised.
“I just want to make sure that it’s fully protected that this will happen and I want to assure the voters that this will happen,” she said.
Gloria Partida raised concerns about the city’s affordable housing requirements.
“I’m actually okay with the land dedication because we’re going to get the number of units that meets the percentage for what we’re requiring,” she said. “What I question is the rest of the land dedication… there’s another nine, almost 0.3 acres that they still have to meet.”
Partida also questioned whether the proposed down payment assistance program would truly help local workers.
“I also feel that the down payment assistance program, I don’t know how much local workforce that’s really going to address,” she said.
The meeting ended without formal votes but with a unified message: Davis needs more housing, but it must be the right kind of housing—homes that teachers, families, and young professionals can afford.
Councilmembers also acknowledged that the city must navigate a delicate balance between community preferences and project feasibility. A project too ambitious may fail financially or at the ballot box; one too modest may fail to meet the city’s needs.
Beyond the council chambers, a larger question looms: if Davis continues to reject housing projects under Measure J, will the state intervene? California’s housing laws now give the state substantial leverage over cities that fail to meet regional housing goals. State intervention could weaken or override Measure J’s local approval process—a reality many Davis residents have yet to confront.
Some see that as a threat; others view it as a warning. Either way, the message is clear. The choices Davis makes in the next year will determine not only whether it can sustain its schools and workforce but whether it retains control over its own future.
As the June 2026 ballot approaches, both the City Council and DJUSD are signaling that inaction is no longer an option. The council is working to refine a proposal voters can support, and the district is warning that without new housing, Davis’ educational system could face cuts and closures.
The stakes, as both city and school officials now make clear, could not be higher. How this next Measure J election plays out will determine not just the fate of Village Farms, but the future of Davis itself.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“As UC Davis expands its footprint into Sacramento, more employees are choosing to live closer to that campus rather than in Davis.”
As Chancellor Katehi warned a decade ago.
The school district’s “sprawl for schools” campaign has indeed changed the conversation, and put the focus on just how despicable they can be when their interests are threatened.
Honestly, I’m not seeing very many people defend what they’re attempting to do in regard to their political campaign. (Including from people who generally value education.)
“ This week, the stakes surrounding Davis’ housing debate grew more pronounced.”
Spin. Nothing more, nothing less. The stakes were not in any way changed by this week’s public yammering.
“ the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) continued to warn of the real and immediate consequences of inaction—declining enrollment, program cuts, and possible school closures.”
The key word is “continued.” Nothing new was said, and the situation described was/is exactly the same as it was in the last DJUSD discussion.
The one piece of news this week that was (somewhat) new this week was shared on NPRs “The World” show/podcast. Specifically that the number of school age children in the US is over 2 million lower nationwide. Bottomline, the universal problem is too many schools chasing too few students. DJUSD is playing ostrich with regard to that problem, thinking that our community can steal elementary school students away from other communities facing the same problem in their schools.
The Center for Disease Control also released the latest births per woman statistics, and it once again declined … to below 1.6 for the first time in US history.
Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups — and that doesn’t seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina.
People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment.
“Worry is not a good moment to have kids,” and that’s why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said.
Matt Williams: “The one piece of news this week that was (somewhat) new this week was shared on NPRs “The World” show/podcast. Specifically that the number of school age children in the US is over 2 million lower nationwide. Bottomline, the universal problem is too many schools chasing too few students. DJUSD is playing ostrich with regard to that problem, thinking that our community can steal elementary school students away from other communities facing the same problem in their schools.”
If you look at who is having children, it is typically adults in the age range of 20-49. That age range cohort is largest in the recent U.S. census. In Davis if you look at the age range of 30 to 49, it is anomalously small. (In Davis, the 20-29 year age cohort includes most of the UCD students). Neighboring communities of Dixon, Woodland, and West Sacramento have larger proportional cohorts in that age range.
Davis deliberately starves itself of younger adults (age 30-49) who might be interested in settling here in the name of whatever reasons people give for not building accessible housing. Meanwhile the number of Davisites age 50+ have ballooned since 2000, mostly aging in place.
Although you could justify that maybe the school district should be smaller because there are fewer children nationwide, it is also true that locally Davis is transitioning to more of a large retirement community because 30-49 year-olds find it more difficult to settle here. That is not the case for Woodland, West Sacramento, & Dixon; they have proportionally-sized percentages of that age 30-49 year cohort, and they’re not talking about school closures.
Locally we’re contributing to the worry that you cite in the younger adult population.
Early Millennial Home Buyer Statistics (Ages 25-34)
“Early Millennials have moved past their careers’ initial stages and seek longer-term stability for themselves, their pets, and their families. For them, a home represents life progression and achievement of major milestones.”
Pet owners want “features like fenced yards and durable flooring…. neighborhoods with nearby parks, trails, and veterinary services.”
Late Millennial Home Buyer Statistics (Ages 35-44)
“Late Millennials have established their careers and are building foundations for their future. Their considerations extend beyond the individual to growing families, including schools and community amenities.
Late Millennials bought the most expensive homes in 2024, with average purchase prices of $556,897, the highest among all age groups.”
https://homebuyer.com/research/home-buyer-statistics
Workforce housing in Davis and much of California is likelier to be rental housing.
Move-up housing is needed for older residents who are presently aging in place.
I agree with everything that Don has said.
I would add that when late Millennials have school age children they are more often than not in High School rather than in Elementary School. High School kids age out of the system and those late Millennials become empty nesters.
Matt: Not as much anymore. Women are waiting longer to have children.
“The average age of moms giving birth in the U.S. continues to rise, hitting nearly 30 years old in 2023, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In the report, published Friday by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, researchers found the average age of all mothers giving birth in the United States increased from 28.7 years old in 2016 to 29.6 in 2023. For new first-time moms, average age also increased, from 26.6 in 2016 to 27.5 in 2023. The data was taken from the National Vital Statistics System, which includes all birth records in the country.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/average-age-moms-birth-cdc-30-years/
There is a growing body of research suggesting that high housing costs and housing-market pressures are one of the important drivers of lower fertility (delayed childbearing or fewer children) in many advanced economies.
Good information Don … as far as it goes. A one year increase in birth age translates to only a single year difference in the school class of any children.
The factor that the data does not take into consideration is the average purchase price of the homes those women are purchasing with their significant other. Nationally the average home sale price is $512,800, but in Davis that average is $837,457. What that difference in price means is that the parents need 60% more gross household income as well as $167,491 rather than $102,560 for a 20% down payment. How long do you think it takes two young parents to save that additional $65,000. Whatever that amount of time is will in most cases be added on to the age of their children when they make their Davis purchase.
“Whatever that amount of time is will in most cases be added on to the age of their children when they make their Davis purchase.”
I’ve done the math: Senior-citizen age children. Right around the time they start getting dementia, and will be going “backward” through the school system.
But seriously, many young people will inherit something from their parents – and may very well become “cash” purchasers. (Assuming they don’t keep their own parents’ house.)
The “real” equity issue in this country has to do with generational wealth. But it’s certainly easier to build that in some places, rather than others.
Hiram, your point is 100% correct with one exception … “deliberately starves itself”. If you look at the real estate listings (and sales history over the past decade) Davis consistently has just as many, or more, $800,000 plus priced homes for sale as Woodland, West Sacramento, and/or Dixon. Davis is not starved for homes in that price range, and the buyers of those expensive (unaffordable by young families with elementary school children) homes are more often than not in the 30-49 age bracket your comment references … typically in the upper ages of that bracket. What developers in Davis have starved the community of (and developers in those other three cities have not starved their community of) are homes priced at or near $500,000 … a price that is affordable for the parents in the lower ages of the 20-49 bracket. That will mean building homes that only have 900-1,000 square feet because of the higher land prices in Davis, but it can be done at a profit for the developers if they build at the now customary $500 per square foot. They will also have smaller lots.
The DJUSD School Board and the City of Davis curently contribute to the “starving” of affordable houses by setting fees at a per unit level. That means a developer pays essentially the same amount in fees for a large lot $million home as it pays for a small lot $500,000 home. As a result the rhetoric of “we want small families with children” and “we want better social justice in housing” are little more than virtue signaling. DJUSD and the City can quickly and effectively fix that problem by setting its fee revenue targets per acre rather than per lot. That would mean a developer could take the socially just action of building two $500,000 homes rather than one $million home, with one large lot becoming two small lots. The fee revenue for DJUSD and the City would be the same, but the social outcome would be improved.
“That will mean building homes that only have 900-1,000 square feet”
For rental housing that could be ideal. I doubt that new home buyers would prefer smaller homes.
Any new housing proposal needs a mix of home sizes and a mix of homes intended for rent vs purchase. Any developer who has worked in Davis realizes that this density balance is the main negotiating point with the council.
I would note that anything that increases the housing density of the proposals along Covell will increase the traffic.
“I would note that anything that increases the housing density of the proposals along Covell will increase the traffic.”
Not necessarily. A lot of the traffic is generated from commuters going to Woodland or to the freeway. You don’t see a huge flow of traffic from the neighborhoods to the corridor even during peak hours.
“Not necessarily.”
This is the most patently-absurd thing that’s ever been said on the Vanguard. Do you think they’d just tear down the housing that already exists in other communities?
Your theory is that they’ll incur the costs of selling, buying, and moving to a smaller house in Davis, and that their existing housing would then be occupied by families with no connection to Davis (and/or no reason to drive through it)?
And that the newly-minted Davisites would not have any family members who work outside of Davis?
(Keep in mind that this absurd claim is essentially the ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION for pursuing more sprawl on the boundaries of Davis.)
“You don’t see a huge flow of traffic from the neighborhoods to the corridor even during peak hours.”
Yet another absurdly-outrageous claim. The traffic would flow outward to Sacramento and elsewhere (including to UCD’s Davis campus) in the morning, and back to the neighborhoods in the evening.
Hiram, I don’t disagree with your logic, but I believe the voters can only vote on proposals that the developers bring forward. It is those proposals that have starved Davis of homes built small enough to be affordable for young parents in the 20-49 age cohort.
That “starving” is particularly evident in DJUSD teachers and other relatively low paid members of the Davis service economy.
Ron O
Traffic (what little there is of it) to UCD is not “out of town.” Perhaps someone living in Woodland has that perspective but almost everyone who lives in Davis sees UCD as integrated into the town. Few people have a good idea of where the boundary is between the two, and most don’t even think of it.
As I’ve pointed out, 70% of current UCD employees who live in town get to campus without a car, but 90% of those who live outside of town drive in. Moving the latter group into town will likely reduce traffic by 60%. And there’s a certain proportion of those households that have two people already working Davis. (They both might be at UCD.) On net the traffic load will decrease for multiple reasons.
Richard says: “Traffic (what little there is of it) to UCD is not “out of town.”
Tell me something – do you not actually understand that UCD is NOT IN DAVIS? If not, I fear there something more serious going on with you. UCD is literally/legally “out of town”.
Do you have a different definition than any normal person regarding what a “little” amount of traffic actually is?
“Perhaps someone living in Woodland has that perspective but almost everyone who lives in Davis sees UCD as integrated into the town. Few people have a good idea of where the boundary is between the two, and most don’t even think of it.”
I personally had no connection to UCD (directly, or indirectly) when I was living in Davis (or Woodland) and commuting to Sacramento via YoloBus. And neither did the guy living across the street from me (and a whole bunch of other people). Literally “standing room only” on that bus, quite often.
Have you ever taken Yolobus to/from Sacramento in during your entire existence in Davis, to believe you’re even qualified to talk about it?
Part of UCD are in the city limits. All of UC Davis is in the city’s Sphere of Influence of Yolo LAFCO. That is because the populations, economies, and infrastructure of the city and campus are integrated. Obviously, anyone doing planning for development is going to factor in the presence of the largest employer in the area, the single entity that makes the greatest contribution to the local population and has the greatest impact on the local transportation.
Discussing Davis transportation and population trends without including UCD would be planning malpractice.
https://www.yololafco.org/files/ff12c0f03/City+of+Davis+Boundary+and+SOI-2024.pdf
Not seeing anything on that map which shows that UCD is within Davis’ city limits.
But regardless of that issue, it’s the other way-around: It SHOULD be UCD that considers its impacts; not the other-way around.
UCD is more powerful, more connected, and wealthier than Davis itself is. It also already provides housing to students and staff if/when it “feels like doing so” – despite not having to account for any of that in regard to RHNA, DJUSD, etc.
But for me (personally) Davis was primarily a suburb of Sacramento, and did not revolve around UCD. My initial connection was an indirect one, in regard to UCD.
Honestly – anyone from the Bay Area does not differentiate Davis OR UC Davis from the Sacramento region itself. It’s ain’t as special as some people seem to think it is. (Mostly, the entire area is “in the way” between the Bay Area and Tahoe/Truckee.)
Matt Williams: “Hiram, your point is 100% correct with one exception … “deliberately starves itself”. If you look at the real estate listings (and sales history over the past decade) Davis consistently has just as many, or more, $800,000 plus priced homes for sale as Woodland, West Sacramento, and/or Dixon.”
I had in mind that for the past 20+ years Davis voters have rejected all developments that could have been accessible to the 30-49 age group. The only ones that were approved were Breton Woods for 55+ and Nishi for college age students. Annual population growth rate in Davis has been just under .5% since 2000. If a large portion of the once younger population in 2000 has aged in place, then there’s the recipe for starving ourselves of having younger adults that want to settle.
Just wondering if you believe that existing homeowners live forever. Some kind of fountain of youth exists in Davis, which will permanently cause housing to (never) turn over?
In any case, people don’t move out of their houses (anywhere) as a result of ageing-out of a school system. That’s why, for example, the older parts of Woodland are experiencing a decline in enrollment. (Absolutely NOTHING to do with housing prices.)
But no one reading this will own ANYTHING within 50 years (and most of us a lot sooner than that). Housing inevitably turns over, but not as fast as school districts would apparently prefer. (Hence, their advocacy for a continuing Ponzi scheme.)
Hiram, I don’t disagree with your logic, but I believe the voters can only vote on proposals that the developers bring forward. It is those proposals that have starved Davis of homes built small enough to be affordable for young parents in the 20-49 age cohort.
That “starving” is particularly evident in DJUSD teachers and other relatively low paid members of the Davis service economy.
What about all the housing not built because rejected projects (by the voters), withdrawn projects because of the threat by the voters, and projects that haven’t come forward due to not wanting to deal with the voters? Last I checked that amounted to only 700 or so single family homes being built in the last 20 years (though that will change once Bretton Woods hits the market) and most of the multifamily housing being student apartments (granted we needed them). I’m sure you’ll have a long answer to explain why the data doesn’t matter, but the data is the data.
David: How many “pre-owned” houses turned over during that period?
As you say, the data is the data. And the data would include sales of pre-existing housing.
Why are you advocating for a Ponzi scheme, anyway? 700 more houses ALREADY sounds like 700 too many, to me.
I guess you ll have to find out and explain the relevance of that datapoint
The relevance is that each pre-existing house that is sold provides an opportunity for someone else to move in – often times, a family.
Does that actually need to be explained?
And again, why do you believe that a community constantly needs to expand? You do realize, I assume – that this is by definition not sustainable (environmentally, or in any other way). It is the OPPOSITE of sustainable. In the meantime, pursuit of that unsustainable goal makes a community progressively worse. Why would anyone in their right mind support that?
At what point are we going to have THAT conversation (not just in Davis, but throughout the region, state, and beyond)?
Fortunately, young people have already been making that decision (1.6 kids), despite the dissatisfaction of those who keep pushing the growth agenda. (The latter are apparently mathematically-challenged.)
“Does that actually need to be explained?”
Yes, because we know from the data from the last 20 years that families did not move into Davis and the population distribution looks like a giant dumbbell with huge distributions at both ends and almost none in the 30 to 50 range where families reside.
“Yes, because we know from the data from the last 20 years that families did not move into Davis and the population distribution looks like a giant dumbbell with huge distributions at both ends and almost none in the 30 to 50 range where families reside.”
Families ABSOLUTLEY moved into Davis (into existing housing) within the last 20 years – I personally witnessed it. And so did others. NONE of the houses that were for sale remained empty.
What’s the obsession with families, anyway? And who cares what age they are? And for that matter, what’s with the obsession to house people with no money, in Davis? Why, exactly, is that the goal? Are you and others TRYING to make the city fail?
There’s PLENTY of families who have money – they’re not always poor.
But one near-universal truth about families is that they’re among the most-impactful (in a negative manner) regarding the amount of services they need (schools, libraries, etc.), the amount of cars they have, etc. These are the same people who can’t have “their” school closed down.
How many cars do you have in your OWN family?
Matt and Hiram
Matt makes an excellent point. Urban water use varies little on a per acre basis despite differences in density because half of that water use is for external irrigation. As density increases, that irrigation use decreases in rough proportion to the internal domestic use. That is the single biggest part of the fixed fee charge. The City should look more closely at the bases of the other charges as well.
Turns out you don’t need a lot of irrigation when you’re surrounded by concrete.
Hiram says: “Neighboring communities of Dixon, Woodland, and West Sacramento have larger proportional cohorts in that age range.”
Uh, huh. They also have schools – and you want to steal their students. Not for the sake of the students or their families, but because DJUSD is too large in regard to the decreasing need of Davis.
And truth be told, those other communities are essentially “poaching” students from places like the Bay Area, which are then faced with their own school closures.
Though even the other local communities you speak of (such as Woodland) are experiencing a decline in enrollment in older sections of town. (Nothing to do with housing prices. Instead, the reason is because families don’t immediately move out of their homes, as soon as they age out of a school system.)
Ron O: 80% of current UCD employees at the Davis campus live outside of Davis. That would be about 20,000 out of 25,000 employees. I am certain that similar percentages exist for other major employers in Davis. With numbers like that, inter-district transfers are going to make sense for many families. Davis has successfully restricted growth since 2000, but we have increased commute traffic as a result.
Your figures aren’t correct – per the Vanguard itself.
It’s a significant number though – not arguing with that.
The problem is with your conclusion. Other communities actively “pursue” sprawl, and nothing that Davis does (or doesn’t do) has much impact regarding that.
The price difference alone will ensure that newcomers to the area (who want a new house) will seek it in places like Spring Lake. (Another 1,600 housing units on the way at the technology park, in addition to the ongoing construction within Spring Lake.)
I don’t know why anyone is even moving to the area at this point, since UCD is not hiring.
No one (especially families) is going to go through the expense of selling, buying, and moving to Davis to a smaller house without parking.
Anyone who has recently moved to the area ALREADY HAD plenty of opportunity to buy a house in Davis. They looked at the existing inventory and prices (which, despite what some claim – is ALWAYS available), and decided to buy a new house in Spring Lake, instead. Nothing that Davis builds is going to compete with Spring Lake in particular, in regard to bang for the buck.
In addition, it’s a very easy commute from Spring Lake to UCD, and doesn’t even require traveling through Davis.
As far as interdistrict transfers, the result of that is that Spring Lake hasn’t built its planned schools. (Only one small one for the entire (4,000 unit?) development, plus 1,600 housing units at the technology park.)
Working at UCD does not mean that Davis schools are any more convenient for Woodland residents, compared to Woodland schools. It’s not as if DJUSD campuses are located on the UCD campus. (And a lot of times, the choice of the specific school is not up to the parents in the first place. It could very well be miles from the UCD campus.)
But if this situation is going to continue (UCD employees taking advantage of Davis’ school system), perhaps UCD itself should at least pay some of the DJUSD parcel tax.
In any case, as the district has already noted – enrollment numbers are dropping DESPITE poaching out-of-district students. It’s time for DJUSD to right-size itself, even if it’s going to continue poaching students from other districts.
I fully support DJUSD’s realization that they’re going to have to downsize. However, I’m not too happy about their desperate “sprawl for schools campaign” as a last-ditch effort to avoid reality and to stir up trouble in Davis. (“Emotional decision”, indeed. Sounds like there’s at least some temporary work for DJUSD psychological counselors.)
Another question I have (in regard to out-of-district students) is how non-resident UCD employees (who take advantage of that situation) deal with coordination of schedules (e.g., school gets out at 3:00, while they might have to work until 5:00). Do they tell their boss that they need to drive Johnny home to Woodland at 3:00, but will then return to work an hour later?
In any case, it doesn’t sound like a very good plan in terms of convenience, compared to having Johnny walk down the street (or bike) to school from his actual home.
My guess is that parents who take advantage of this situation primarily do so because of perceived quality differences between the two school systems. A quality difference that they don’t have to pay for – unlike Davis “patsy” property owners (whether or not they have a kid in the system).
If I was in that situation – I’d almost certainly take advantage of it as well. (But I’d try to avoid telling Davisites that they’re suckers, for agreeing to this.)
Ron O.: “Your figures aren’t correct – per the Vanguard itself.”
I received info from a PRA application to UCD a couple of weeks ago for the percent of employees living outside of Davis (80%). The number of 25,000 Davis campus employees comes from a 2020 City of Davis report, see page 164 (I rounded down because it made the math easier):
https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showpublisheddocument/15811/637526927733500000
If my figures are wrong from those two sources, what more reliable/correct figures should I be referencing?
“But no one reading this will own ANYTHING within 50 years (and most of us a lot sooner than that). Housing inevitably turns over, but not as fast as school districts would apparently prefer. (Hence, their advocacy for a continuing Ponzi scheme.)”
I can’t vouch for Vanguard readership, but without much effort I can think of 7-8 people in Davis who have owned homes locally for 50+ years. Does that mean something? If health cooperates, I would hope to own my home for that long. Since 2000, the Davis population, 80+ has more than doubled. (U.S. census), far more than the overall growth rate. I think there’s a good case to make that local longevity has increased. I doubt planners were fully considering the numbers, longevity, and behaviors of older Davis residents 30 years ago. The City of Davis banned outdoor smoking in most public spaces in 1993.
“As far as interdistrict transfers, the result of that is that Spring Lake hasn’t built its planned schools.”
Davis has also passed on building schools because the child population didn’t materialize in a way to make it worthwhile — the Grande property (North Star), the Nugget Fields property (Wildhorse). Both parcels were about right for elementary schools. But I note that Woodland has a Spring Lake Elementary School.
“I received info from a PRA application to UCD a couple of weeks ago for the percent of employees living outside of Davis (80%).”
Post a link to it, if you want to. But again, this isn’t the issue.
“I can’t vouch for Vanguard readership, but without much effort I can think of 7-8 people in Davis who have owned homes locally for 50+ years.”
That’s unusual, but they’re near the end of their life cycle. Most housing actually does turn over a lot more often than “end of life”, however.
But let me ask you a question, then: How many of those 50 years did they need what DJUSD provides? (That’s my actual point.)
With complete certainty, you already know that ALL housing eventually turns over – just not often-enough for the desires of some school districts.
Again, this is occurring in Woodland, as well – in older sections of town. Has absolutely nothing to do with housing prices, and everything to do with the fact that most households don’t need the services of a local school district for very long. People/families don’t move out simply because they’ve “aged out” of the local school system.
There will always be a need for a school system for an existing city – it’s just likely to a reduced need compared to when a housing development is new. This is not a crisis, tragedy, or anything for which psychological counseling should be needed. It may, however, be time for some of the newer teachers in particular (some of whom live out of district themselves) to dust off their resumes. (Not a good field to go into in the first place when there’s an overall declining need, but that’s not the city’s problem. For that matter, there’s lots of technology workers getting laid-off as well these days as well.)
The other point (previously noted) is that DJUSD is ALREADY poaching students from some of the same families that you think would move to a shoebox in Davis. So if they actually DID move to Davis, it’s not going to result in a net increase of DJUSD students – since they’re ALREADY ATTENDING DJUSD.
And yet, this poaching of students apparently STILL isn’t enough for DJUSD to avoid downsizing. (They’re probably correct regarding that – even with the other new developments in Davis – such as Chiles Ranch and the one on Pole Line, the 1,600 housing units coming at the technology park in Woodland – adjacent to Highway 113, the ongoing/other construction occurring in Spring Lake, etc.
In fact, DJUSD is stating that unless BOTH of the sprawling housing proposals are approved in Davis, there WILL be at least one school closed. So if I was a betting man, I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t lose money by betting that there will be a closure within DJUSD.
I support DJUSD in right-sizing its system.
David, the developers need to practice the first rule of public speaking (and marketing) … “Know your audience.”
The reason we have had (almost) no proposals that could win enough votes to pass is because the developers have been addicted to the power to ram poorly conceived project proposals through the process. “developer-driven planning” has gotten the inevitable results.
Hiram
The correct number for the Davis campus is about 60% of the 11,000 employed on the Davis campus. I think you’re including the employees at the Sacramento medical campus. The UCD Travel Survey has the correct numbers and it matches with the employment data I got last year from UCD: https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/research-product/results-2023-2024-campus-travel-survey.
I have also corrected the Davis/UCD employment and commuter data from the single Census source (On the Map) which is missing about 7,000 employed residents. It’s about 17,000 who work and live in town, 17,000 who live here and commute elsewhere and 17,000 who live elsewhere and commute here. I’ll post a link to my analysis on my blog site later this week.
Ron O
You complain that Davis is already stealing about a 1,000 students from elsewhere. Largely those students have parents that work in Davis. So Davis would just be providing housing mostly for those families that already send their students to Davis schools–Davis would not be stealing students from other communities.
” . . . Davis would not be stealing students from other communities.”
And neither would it increase DJUSD enrollment. Are we in agreement, here?
Of course, it’s already caused a lot of damage to Woodland. There’s a group of parents (whom I personally know) who have been trying to get WJUSD to build another school at the technology park with its 1,600 housing units for years at this point, but it appears they’re going to fail – probably as a result of DJUSD’s poaching activities. (In addition to the several unbuilt schools within the original Spring Lake boundary.)
This isn’t my personal concern, but I see and understand their point. (I have noticed that they’re somewhat reluctant to talk about the decline in enrollment in the older parts of Woodland, however – where a school should be closed.)
This is another reminder that Ron doesn’t live in Davis and his interests do not align with this community
Very happy to see the council pushing back against the crazy proposed housing mix here. We have an affordability crisis, not a “number of homes” crisis, so building a lot of unafordable homes entirely misses the point.
80% of the houses in this proposal you need a household income over $180 to be able to afford. Thats crazy.
Was there discussion about changing higher density forms of single family homes into MULTIFAMILY homes instead? Having at least a single shared wall can cut energy consumption in half and lower the sales price by quite a bit. win-win.
At least half of the higher density “units” proposed by this development should be turned into multi-plexes and condos. Making “smaller lots” for single family homes doesn’t help. Once you get above 8 units an acre, you might as well be living in townhomes because you are inches from your neighbor anyway… but you pay 50% more for PG&E…. lose lose
“Having at least a single shared wall can cut energy consumption in half and lower the sales price by quite a bit.”
If you want to get “really” creative, maybe the different units can share a bathroom, as well. That oughta appeal to families. Maybe they can do the same thing with parking spaces – create sort of a “timeshare” arrangement for that.
I don’t know why you’re pushing density, since they can’t increase the number of units without creating and circulating a new EIR.
They already included a higher density alternative in the EIR, but it was for the entire 300 acres rather than a reduced version that has 1800 units. The higher density version is the environmentally preferred option so the developer can adopt that version without needing further CEQA review.
What do you have against home buyers choosing units with shared walls? Davis is full of multiplexes with shared walls. Maybe you haven’t noticed since you live in Woodland.